Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 3 cited by

Beyond the Hype: A Comprehensive Review of Current Trends in Generative AI Research, Teaching Practices, and Tools

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Most computing educators now allow generative AI in class, but only a third actively teach with it, and the skills educators say matter most are shifting from writing code to reading, evaluating, and decomposing problems.

desk verdict Useful 2024 synthesis of GenAI in computing education; treat the survey percentages as indicative, not population estimates. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14732 v1 pith:E5I4UVN5 submitted 2024-12-19 cs.CY cs.AIcs.HCcs.SE

James Prather , Juho Leinonen , Natalie Kiesler , Jamie Gorson Benario , Sam Lau , Stephen MacNeil , Narges Norouzi , Simone Opel
show 7 more authors
Vee Pettit Leo Porter Brent N. Reeves Jaromir Savelka David H. Smith IV Sven Strickroth Daniel Zingaro
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.HCcs.SE
keywords generativeAIcomputingeducationlargelanguagemodelspedagogicalpracticesteachingsystematicliteraturerevieweducatorsurveydeveloper
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This report tries to establish an accurate picture of how and why computing educators are integrating generative AI (GenAI) into their teaching, and how the competencies expected of programmers are changing. It combines a systematic literature review of 71 studies, a survey of 76 educators and 39 professional developers, and 17 interviews with educators, researchers, and tool creators. If the picture is right, the field has moved past banning toward pragmatic adoption: 77.6% of surveyed educators do not explicitly disallow student use of GenAI, yet only 35.5% actively incorporate it into courses. The report also claims that guardrailed GenAI tools produce positive learning outcomes in 73% of studies when students receive no explicit guidance, versus 55% for general-purpose tools, and that both educators and developers see a shift toward code reading, code evaluation, and problem decomposition as core skills.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a three-part triangulation: a systematic literature review (guided by Kitchenham and Brereton's method) that classifies 71 studies by tool type (general-purpose, task-specific, or instructor-guardrailed), purpose, and whether students received guidance; an international survey of educators and developers with both closed and open-ended questions; and semi-structured interviews with educators using GenAI, educators studying GenAI, tool creators, and one thoughtful non-user. The load-bearing cross-tabulation is Table 7, which compares tool type and guidance level against whether study findings were positive, negative, mixed, or neutral; it is this table that supports the report's recommendation that instructors either guide students on using general-purpose tools or adopt tools with pedagogical guardrails.

What would settle it

A large, demographically representative survey of computing educators (e.g., a random sample across institution types and countries) that found the proportion of educators who explicitly disallow GenAI is much higher than 22.4%, or that guardrailed tools show positive outcomes at rates no better than general-purpose tools when guidance is held constant, would directly contradict the report's central empirical claims.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the computing education community has entered a phase of partial, pragmatic integration of generative AI rather than wholesale adoption or prohibition. Triangulating a systematic literature review with educator and developer surveys and in-depth interviews, the report argues that most instructors tolerate GenAI tools (77.6% do not disallow them), fewer actively integrate them (35.5%), and those who integrate focus on teaching students to use the tools, generating course content, and providing feedback at scale. A key pattern from the literature review is that when students are not given explicit guidance on how to use GenAI, studies using tools with instructor-provided guardrails report positive findings 73% of the time, while studies using general-purpose tools report positive findings only 55% of the time; when guidance is provided, the type of tool matters less. Both surveyed educators and developers report that programming competencies are changing, with code reading, code evaluation/testing, debugging, and problem decomposition becoming more important than writing code from scratch, and prompting emerging as a new skill.

Load-bearing premise

The most load-bearing premise is that the survey and interview participants represent the broader populations of computing educators and professional developers; the samples are small (76 educators, 39 developers, 17 interviews) and were recruited through the authors' own networks, so the reported percentages and recommendations only generalize if these participants are not systematically biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the report's findings hold, computing educators should expect that most students will use GenAI regardless of policy, so explicit bans are increasingly impractical and less common.
  • Instructors who cannot provide detailed guidance on GenAI use should prefer guardrailed tools (e.g., tools that withhold complete solutions) over general-purpose chatbots, based on the 73% versus 55% positive-result rates.
  • Assessment practices are likely to keep shifting toward proctored exams, oral exams, and evaluating the process of software creation rather than the final artifact alone.
  • Computing curricula should increase emphasis on code reading, code evaluation, testing, debugging, and problem decomposition, while reducing emphasis on writing syntactically correct code from scratch.
  • Educators' perceptions of how developers use GenAI may misalign with actual industry use, so regular consultation with industry partners is needed to keep curricula relevant.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The report's recommendation to prefer guardrailed tools rests on a relatively small number of studies (26 for guardrailed without guidance), and the publication-bias caveat the authors acknowledge means the 73% figure could overstate effectiveness in unpublished settings.
  • The survey's convenience samples—76 educators and 39 developers, mostly from the authors' professional networks—mean the descriptive percentages (e.g., 77.6% not disallowing) should be read as characterizing these respondents, not necessarily all computing educators worldwide.
  • If the competency shift toward code reading and evaluation is real, a testable extension would be to compare learning outcomes in courses that explicitly assess code comprehension and evaluation versus courses that continue to assess only code writing.
  • The report's finding that educators underestimate developers' daily GenAI use suggests a potential lag in curriculum, but also raises the question of whether industry use is itself changing rapidly enough that current curricula may be chasing a moving target.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This ITiCSE working group report combines a systematic literature review of 71 papers, an international survey of 76 computing educators and 39 industry developers, and 17 semi-structured interviews to describe how generative AI is being integrated into computing education and how programming competencies are perceived to be changing. The report triangulates these sources around ten research questions and distills the results into a key-takeaways box covering adoption rates, assessment changes, competency shifts, and a recommendation that instructors either provide guidance on GenAI use or deploy guardrailed tools.

Significance. The report is a timely and methodologically transparent synthesis of a rapidly moving research area. Strengths include a detailed SLR protocol with data posted on OSF, explicit threats-to-validity coverage in Section 7, independent two-coder thematic analysis for open-ended survey items, and external comparison with the StackOverflow 2024 developer survey. The competency-shift finding (toward code reading, evaluation, and problem decomposition) is consistently corroborated across the educator survey, the developer survey, the interviews, and the literature review. The principal weakness is that the survey samples are small, self-selected convenience samples, and the report presents point estimates as community-level facts without confidence intervals or sensitivity analysis. If the results are reframed as an exploratory snapshot of a GenAI-engaged subset of the community, the report is a useful contribution; in its current form, the generalizing language overreaches the data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2.1 and key takeaways box] The headline adoption percentages (77.6% of educators not explicitly disallowing GenAI, 35.5% actively incorporating it, 79.5% of developers using GenAI) are presented as community-level facts, yet they rest on self-selected convenience samples of N=76 and N=39 recruited through CSEd mailing lists, conference contacts, and personal networks. The authors' own Section 7.2 acknowledges that respondents 'may be more involved in CSEd than their peers,' but no confidence intervals, weighting, or sensitivity analysis are provided. Because the report's central claim is to describe 'what is happening on the ground,' these point estimates must be reframed as exploratory and reported with measures of uncertainty, and the key takeaways box should be reworded to avoid unsupported generalization.
  2. [Section 3.4, Tables 7 and 8] The recommendation to use instructor-guardrailed tools when students receive no guidance rests on a comparison of 19/26 (73%) positive findings for guardrailed tools versus 12/22 (55%) for general-purpose tools. These cell counts are small, no significance test is reported, and the studies are not randomized; confounding factors such as course level, study design, and tool quality are not controlled. The difference could easily arise from sampling variability, yet this recommendation is repeated verbatim in the key takeaways box ('Guide students on how to use GenAI or use custom tools'). Please add a caveat about the small cell counts, report a formal test if appropriate, or soften the conclusion.
  3. [Section 5.7 and Section 6] The developer survey's 79.5% adoption rate is described as 'in line with larger surveys,' citing the StackOverflow 2024 figure of 63%. A 16-percentage-point gap is substantial and may itself be evidence of the self-selected, academia-connected nature of the sample. Before using the StackOverflow data as external validation, the report should acknowledge this discrepancy and discuss whether the difference reflects sample bias, question wording, or a genuinely different population.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2.1, Table 3] At least five of the ten reference papers used to validate the search string are authored or co-authored by members of this working group (e.g., [34], [86], [87], [94], [120]). Please disclose this overlap explicitly and, if feasible, add reference papers without author overlap to make the validation more independent.
  2. [Section 5.2.1] ES-10 was answered by 17 educators who disallow GenAI, but the follow-up ES-11 reports 25 responses; please clarify the branching logic or the denominator for this question.
  3. [Figure 7] The pie chart for developer usage frequency has labels that are visually confusing, with 'several times a day' appearing twice and small slices hard to read; please redraw with a clean legend and distinct categories.
  4. [Section 5.7, DS-3] The percentages for tool types (52% autocompletion, 48% chatbots, 29% no answer) do not sum to 100%; state that these are percentages of the 31 GenAI users and that the categories are not mutually exclusive.
  5. [Section 8.2] The sentence 'Instructors and noticing a large influx' appears to be a typo; it should read 'instructors are noticing a large influx.'
  6. [Table 9 caption] The caption says '1st column' where 'first column' is intended.
  7. [Section 5.1.2] The response counts for developer demographics vary (country n=18, job title n=23, company type n=27); please add a note that these demographic questions were optional, leading to different response rates.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the report is a descriptive synthesis whose survey and interview data are independent of the SLR; only minor self-citation appears in the SLR recall check.

full rationale

This paper does not derive any quantity from another by construction. The SLR's 71-paper corpus, the educator/developer surveys, and the interviews are separate evidence streams; the headline percentages (77.6% not disallowing, 35.5% incorporating, 79.5% developer use) are directly observed survey responses, not outputs of a fitted model. The one point worth noting is the SLR search-quality check (Section 2.1) used ten reference papers, several of which are authored by the report's own co-authors (e.g., refs [34], [86], [94], [57], [31]); however, this check only confirms that the search string retrieves known papers and does not force any downstream finding. The 'guardrailed tools yield positive results in 73% of studies' claim is an empirical cross-tabulation of the included studies, not a prediction from the search string, and the survey/interview findings stand independently of that categorization. Under the stated rules, self-citation counts as circularity only when it is load-bearing, which is not the case here; hence no circular step is identified and the score reflects only the minor self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The report is an empirical synthesis rather than a formal derivation, so it relies on domain assumptions about representativeness, measurement, and coding reliability rather than on mathematical axioms. Three assumptions are load-bearing: the SLR search captures the relevant literature; the survey/interview convenience samples represent the populations they describe; and the qualitative categorization of study findings into positive/negative/mixed and tool types is reliable. The paper itself identifies several of these as threats to validity, but they remain assumptions the conclusions depend on.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The systematic literature review search string and databases (ASEE Peer, arXiv, Scopus, ACM DL, IEEE Xplore) capture the relevant literature on GenAI in computing education.
    The SLR's completeness depends on this; the authors validate with 10 reference papers, several authored by the report's own authors, which could overstate recall. Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Survey and interview respondents are sufficiently representative of computing educators and professional developers to support the descriptive percentages and recommendations.
    Samples are convenience samples from mailing lists and personal networks (N=76 educators, 39 developers, 17 interviews); Section 4.5-4.6 and Section 7.2 acknowledge non-representativeness.
  • domain assumption Categorizing study findings as positive/negative/mixed/neutral and classifying tool types and guidance is a reliable basis for cross-tabulation.
    Thematic analysis and cross-tabulation in Section 3.2-3.4 rely on subjective coding by a subset of authors; inter-rater reliability is mentioned but not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond the Hype: A Comprehensive Review of Current Trends in Generative AI Research, Teaching Practices, and Tools." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5I4UVN5

@misc{pith2026241214732,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond the Hype: A Comprehensive Review of Current Trends in Generative AI Research, Teaching Practices, and Tools},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5I4UVN5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14732}
}
read the original abstract

Generative AI (GenAI) is advancing rapidly, and the literature in computing education is expanding almost as quickly. Initial responses to GenAI tools were mixed between panic and utopian optimism. Many were fast to point out the opportunities and challenges of GenAI. Researchers reported that these new tools are capable of solving most introductory programming tasks and are causing disruptions throughout the curriculum. These tools can write and explain code, enhance error messages, create resources for instructors, and even provide feedback and help for students like a traditional teaching assistant. In 2024, new research started to emerge on the effects of GenAI usage in the computing classroom. These new data involve the use of GenAI to support classroom instruction at scale and to teach students how to code with GenAI. In support of the former, a new class of tools is emerging that can provide personalized feedback to students on their programming assignments or teach both programming and prompting skills at the same time. With the literature expanding so rapidly, this report aims to summarize and explain what is happening on the ground in computing classrooms. We provide a systematic literature review; a survey of educators and industry professionals; and interviews with educators using GenAI in their courses, educators studying GenAI, and researchers who create GenAI tools to support computing education. The triangulation of these methods and data sources expands the understanding of GenAI usage and perceptions at this critical moment for our community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14732 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The literature review collection and analysis pipeline. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Heatmaps of where authors publishing are located (Figure 2a) and where the student populations they are investigating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The programming languages reported on by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quality of work as evaluated using the paper quality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Instructors integrated GenAI into a wide variety of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Instructors preferred to use tools that did not re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Frequencies of developers (n=23) reporting on their use of GenAI tools as part of their professional role. Right: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of tasks developers use GenAI for and educators think developers use it for. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Working Group 09 in Milan, Italy. Data Availability The data of the systematic literature review is published on OSF: https://osf.io/wpxjb/?view_only=cebf366db7f5423792b39de754972400. Acknowledgments This research was supported by the Research Council of Finland (Acad…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SPIRAL integration of generative AI in an undergraduate creative media course: effects on self-efficacy and career outcome expectations

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a Fall 2023 creative media course, a SPIRAL curriculum that delayed generative AI use until after domain skill practice was associated with higher creative media and GenAI use self-efficacy, demystification about A...

  2. Auto-grader Feedback Utilization and Its Impacts: An Observational Study Across Five Community Colleges

    cs.CY 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Students who checked auto-grader feedback more often earned higher assignment and resubmission scores, but the association may be driven by time spent and overall engagement.

  3. A Comprehensive Survey of Deep Research: Systems, Methodologies, and Applications

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey of 80+ Deep Research systems that proposes a four-layer taxonomy (foundation models, tool use, planning, synthesis) and compares commercial and open-source implementations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

148 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Amy Adair. 2023. Teaching and Learning with AI: How Artificial Intelligence is Transforming the Future of Education. XRDS 29, 3 (apr 2023), 7–9. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3589252

    work page doi:10.1145/3589252 2023

  2. [2]

    Vibhor Agarwal, Madhav Krishan Garg, Sahiti Dharmavaram, and Dhruv Kumar

  3. [3]

    Jana Al Hajj and Melike Sah. 2023. Assessing the Impact of ChatGPT in a PHP Programming Course. In 2023 7th International Symposium on Innovative Approaches in Smart Technologies (ISAS). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. https: //doi.org/10.1109/ISAS60782.2023.10391549

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Bedour Alshaigy and Virginia Grande. 2024. Forgotten Again: Addressing Acces- sibility Challenges of Generative AI Tools for People with Disabilities. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 2024 Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Upp- sala, Sweden) (NordiCHI ’24 Adjunct). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 68, 6 pages. htt...

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Kristi J

    Sara Amani, Lance White, Trini Balart, Laksha Arora, Dr. Kristi J. Shryock, Dr. Kelly Brumbelow, and Dr. Karan L. Watson. 2023. Generative AI Percep- tions: A Survey to Measure the Perceptions of Faculty, Staff, and Students on Generative AI Tools in Academia. arXiv:2304.14415

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Sihem Amer-Yahia, Angela Bonifati, Lei Chen, Guoliang Li, Kyuseok Shim, Jian- liang Xu, and Xiaochun Yang. 2023. From Large Language Models to Databases and Back: A Discussion on Research and Education. SIGMOD Rec. 52, 3 (nov 2023), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/3631504.3631518

    arXiv 2023

  7. [8]

    Karen Anewalt and Jennifer Polack. 2023. Industry Trends in Software Engi- neering: Alumni Perspectives. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 39, 3 (2023), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.5555/3636988.3637014

    arXiv 2023

  8. [9]

    Chaitanya Arora, Utkarsh Venaik, Pavit Singh, Sahil Goyal, Jatin Tyagi, Shyama Goel, Ujjwal Singhal, and Dhruv Kumar. 2024. Analyzing LLM Usage in an Advanced Computing Class in India. arXiv:2404.04603 https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2404.04603

    arXiv 2024

Show all 148 references
  1. [10]

    Imen Azaiz, Oliver Deckarm, and Sven Strickroth. 2023. AI-enhanced Auto- Correction of Programming Exercises: How Effective is GPT-3.5? International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP) 13, 8 (Dec. 2023), 67–83. https://doi.org/ 10.3991/ijep.v13i8.45621

    2023 doi

  2. [12]

    Rishabh Balse, Viraj Kumar, Prajish Prasad, and Jayakrishnan Madathil Warriem

  3. [14]

    Erik Barendsen, Violetta Lonati, Keith Quille, Rukiye Altin, Monica Divitini, Sara Hooshangi, Oscar Karnalim, Natalie Kiesler, Madison Melton, Calkin Suero Montero, and Anna Morpurgo. 2024. AI in and for K-12 Informatics Education. Life after Generative AI. InProceedings of th...

    2024

  4. [15]

    Shraddha Barke, Michael B James, and Nadia Polikarpova. 2023. Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Models. Proceedings of ACM on Programming Languages 7, OOPSLA1 (2023), 85–111. https://doi. org/10.1145/3586030

    2023 doi

  5. [16]

    Brett A Becker, Michelle Craig, Paul Denny, Hieke Keuning, Natalie Kiesler, Juho Leinonen, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, James Prather, and Keith Quille. 2024. Generative AI in Introductory Programming. In Computer Science Curricula 2023, Amruth N. Kumar, Rajendra K. Raj, Sherif G. Al...

    2024

  6. [21]

    Philipp Brauner, Alexander Hick, Ralf Philipsen, and Martina Ziefle. 2023. What does the public think about artificial intelligence?—A criticality map to under- stand bias in the public perception of AI. Frontiers in Computer Science 5 (2023), 1113903. https://doi.org/10.3389/...

    2023

  7. [23]

    Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan and Katherine K. W. Lee. 2023. The AI Generation Gap: Are Gen Z Students More Interested in Adopting Generative AI Such as ChatGPT in Teaching and Learning Than Their Gen X and Millennial Generation Teachers? arXiv:2305.02878

    2023 arXiv

  8. [25]

    Rudrajit Choudhuri, Dylan Liu, Igor Steinmacher, Marco Gerosa, and Anita Sarma. 2024. How Far Are We? The Triumphs and Trials of Generative AI in Learning Software Engineering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th Interna- tional Conference on Software Engineering (Lisbon, Port...

    2024

  9. [26]

    ChatGPT Is Here to Help, Not to Replace Anybody

    Bruno Pereira Cipriano and Pedro Alves. 2024. “ChatGPT Is Here to Help, Not to Replace Anybody” – An Evaluation of Students’ Opinions On Integrating ChatGPT In CS Courses. arXiv:2404.17443

    2024 arXiv

  10. [27]

    Bruno Pereira Cipriano, Pedro Alves, and Paul Denny. 2024. A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words: Exploring Diagram and Video-Based OOP Exercises to Counter LLM Over-Reliance. arXiv:2403.08396 https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08396

    2024 arXiv

  11. [28]

    Mariana Coutinho, Lorena Marques, Anderson Santos, Marcio Dahia, Cesar França, and Ronnie de Souza Santos. 2024. The Role of Generative AI in Software Development Productivity: A Pilot Case Study. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Conference on AI-Powered Software (P...

    2024

  12. [29]

    Crandall, Gina Sprint, and Bryan Fischer

    Aaron S. Crandall, Gina Sprint, and Bryan Fischer. 2023. Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT) Models as a Code Review Feedback Tool in Computer Science Programs. Journal of the Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges 39, 1 (oct 2023), 38–47

    2023

  13. [30]

    Javier Cámara, Javier Troya, Julio Montes-Torres, and Francisco J. Jaime. 2024. Generative AI in the Software Modeling Classroom: An Experience Report With ChatGPT and Unified Modeling Language. IEEE Software 41, 6 (2024), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2024.3385309

    2024

  14. [31]

    Smith IV au2, Max Fowler, James Prather, Brett A

    Paul Denny, David H. Smith IV au2, Max Fowler, James Prather, Brett A. Becker, and Juho Leinonen. 2024. Explaining Code with a Purpose: An Integrated Approach for Developing Code Comprehension and Prompting Skills. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.06050 arXiv:2403.06050 [cs.HC]

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [32]

    Paul Denny, Hassan Khosravi, Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, and Sami Sarsa

  16. [33]

    Becker, and Brent N

    Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen, James Prather, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Thezyrie Amarouche, Brett A. Becker, and Brent N. Reeves. 2023. Promptly: Using Prompt Problems to Teach Learners How to Effectively Utilize AI Code Generators. arXiv:2307.16364 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16364

    2023 arXiv

  17. [35]

    arXiv:2306.10509 https: //arxiv.org/abs/2306.10509

    Can We Trust AI-Generated Educational Content? Comparative Analysis of Human and AI-Generated Learning Resources. arXiv:2306.10509 https: //arxiv.org/abs/2306.10509

    arXiv

  18. [36]

    Becker, James Finnie-Ansley, Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Brent N

    Paul Denny, James Prather, Brett A. Becker, James Finnie-Ansley, Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Brent N. Reeves, Eddie Antonio San- tos, and Sami Sarsa. 2024. Computing Education in the Era of Generative AI. Commun. ACM 67, 2 (Jan. 2024), 56–67. https://doi....

    2024 doi

  19. [37]

    Paul Denny, Sami Sarsa, Arto Hellas, and Juho Leinonen. 2022. Robosourcing Ed- ucational Resources – Leveraging Large Language Models for Learnersourcing. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2211.04715

    2022 doi arXiv

  20. [40]

    Becker, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and James Prather

    James Finnie-Ansley, Paul Denny, Brett A. Becker, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and James Prather. 2022. The Robots Are Coming: Exploring the Implications of OpenAI Codex on Introductory Programming. In Proceedings of the 24th Aus- tralasian Computing Education Conference (ACE ’22). A...

    2022

  21. [42]

    Virginia Grande, Natalie Kiesler, and María Andreína Francisco R. 2024. Student Perspectives on Using a Large Language Model (LLM) for an Assignment on Professional Ethics. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 . ...

    2024

  22. [43]

    Shuchi Grover, Deborah Fields, Yasmin Kafai, Shana White, and Carla Strickland

  23. [44]

    James Finnie-Ansley, Paul Denny, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Eddie Antonio Santos, James Prather, and Brett A. Becker. 2023. My AI Wants to Know If This Will Be on the Exam: Testing OpenAI’s Codex on CS2 Programming Exercises. In Proceedings of the 25th Australasian Computing Educat...

    2023

  24. [45]

    Tonia Haikal and Robert Harold Lightfoot. 2024. Enhancing Education Through Thoughtful Integration of Large Language Models in Assigned Work. In 2024 ASEE-GSW. American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, DC, USA, 9. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--45377

    2024 doi

  25. [46]

    Philipp Haindl and Gerald Weinberger. 2024. Students’ Experiences of Using ChatGPT in an Undergraduate Programming Course. IEEE Access 12 (2024), 43519–43529. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3380909

    2024

  26. [47]

    In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V

    Enduring Lessons from ‘Computer Science for All’ for AI Education in Schools. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2. 1533–1534. https://doi.org/10.1145/3626253.3631656

  27. [48]

    Philip J Guo. 2023. Six Opportunities for scientists and engineers to learn pro- gramming using AI Tools such as ChatGPT.Computing in Science & Engineering 25, 3 (2023), 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2023.3308476

    2023

  28. [50]

    Xinying Hou, Zihan Wu, Xu Wang, and Barbara J. Ericson. 2024. CodeTailor: LLM-Powered Personalized Parsons Puzzles for Engaging Support While Learn- ing Programming. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale. ACM, Atlanta GA USA, 51–62. https://doi.org/...

    2024

  29. [51]

    Ajanovski, Mirela Gutica, Timo Hynninen, Antti Knutas, Juho Leinonen, Chris Messom, and Soohyun Nam Liao

    Arto Hellas, Petri Ihantola, Andrew Petersen, Vangel V. Ajanovski, Mirela Gutica, Timo Hynninen, Antti Knutas, Juho Leinonen, Chris Messom, and Soohyun Nam Liao. 2018. Predicting academic performance: a systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Confer...

    2018

  30. [54]

    Hyoungwook Jin, Seonghee Lee, Hyungyu Shin, and Juho Kim. 2024. Teach AI How to Code: Using Large Language Models as Teachable Agents for Program- ming Education. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24) . Association for Comput...

    2024

  31. [55]

    Minjie Hu, Tony Assadi, and Hamid Mahroeian. 2023. Explicitly Introducing ChatGPT into First-year Programming Practice: Challenges and Impact. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. https...

    2023

  32. [56]

    Sven Jacobs and Steffen Jaschke. 2024. Evaluating the Application of Large Language Models to Generate Feedback in Programming Education. In 2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) . IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON60312.2024.1057...

    2024

  33. [58]

    Oscar Karnalim, Erico Darmawan Handoyo, Hapnes Toba, Yehezkiel David Setiawan, Meliana Christianti Johan, and Josephine Alvina Luwia. 2023. Pla- giarism and AI Assistance Misuse in Web Programming: Unfair Benefits and Characteristics. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on T...

    2023

  34. [59]

    Martin Jonsson and Jakob Tholander. 2022. Cracking the Code: Co-coding with AI in Creative Programming Education. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C ’22) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 5–14. https://doi.org/10....

    2022

  35. [60]

    Gregor Jošt, Viktor Taneski, and Sašo Karakatič. 2024. The Impact of Large Language Models on Programming Education and Student Learning Outcomes. Applied Sciences 14, 10 (2024), 4115

    2024

  36. [61]

    Tyson Kendon, Leanne Wu, and John Aycock. 2023. AI-Generated Code Not Considered Harmful. In Proceedings of the 25th Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education. Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1145/3593342.3593349

    2023

  37. [62]

    Krishnaram Kenthapadi, Himabindu Lakkaraju, and Nazneen Rajani. 2023. Gen- erative AI meets Responsible AI: Practical Challenges and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 5805–5806. https://doi.org/10.1145/35803...

    2023

  38. [63]

    Ericson, David Weintrop, and Tovi Grossman

    Majeed Kazemitabaar, Justin Chow, Carl Ka To Ma, Barbara J. Ericson, David Weintrop, and Tovi Grossman. 2023. Studying the Effect of AI Code Generators on Supporting Novice Learners in Introductory Programming. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comp...

    2023

  39. [65]

    Natalie Kiesler. 2023. Beyond the Textbook: Rethinking Students’ Competencies in the LLM Era. Generative AI: Implications for Teaching and Learning. https: //doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28355.37922/1

    2023

  40. [68]

    Arshia Khan and Janna Madden. 2018. Active Learning: A New Assessment Model That Boost Confidence and Learning While Reducing Test Anxiety. In- ternational Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science 10, 12 (2018), 1

    2018

  41. [69]

    Natalie Kiesler, Ingo Scholz, Jens Albrecht, Friedhelm Stappert, and Uwe Wienkop. 2024. Novice Learners of Programming and Generative AI - Prior Knowledge Matters. In Proceedings of the 24th Koli Calling International Confer- ence on Computing Education Research. https://doi.o...

    2024

  42. [72]

    Natalie Kiesler and Daniel Schiffner. 2023. Large Language Models in Introduc- tory Programming Education: ChatGPT’s Performance and Implications for As- sessments. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.08572 arXiv:2308.08572 [cs.SE]

    2023 doi arXiv

  43. [73]

    Tomaž Kosar, Dragana Ostojić, Yu David Liu, and Marjan Mernik. 2024. Com- puter Science Education in ChatGPT Era: Experiences from an Experiment in a Programming Course for Novice Programmers. Mathematics 12, 5 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/math12050629

    2024 doi

  44. [74]

    Jon A Krosnick. 2018. Questionnaire design. The Palgrave handbook of survey research (2018), 439–455

    2018

  45. [75]

    Bailey Kimmel, Austin Lee Geisert, Lily Yaro, Brendan Gipson, Ronald Taylor Hotchkiss, Sidney Kwame Osae-Asante, Hunter Vaught, Grant Wininger, and Chase Yamaguchi. 2024. Enhancing Programming Error Messages in Real Time with Generative AI. In Extended Abstracts of the 2024 CH...

    2024

  46. [76]

    Barbara Kitchenham and Pearl Brereton. 2013. A systematic review of systematic review process research in software engineering. Information and software technology 55, 12 (2013), 2049–2075

    2013

  47. [77]

    Kimio Kuramitsu, Momoka Obara, Miyu Sato, and Yuka Akinobu. 2024. Training AI Model that Suggests Python Code from Student Requests in Natural Language. Journal of Information Processing 32 (2024), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.2197/ipsjjip. 32.69

    2024 doi

  48. [78]

    Kimio Kuramitsu, Yui Obara, Miyu Sato, and Momoka Obara. 2023. KOGI: A Seamless Integration of ChatGPT into Jupyter Environments for Programming Education. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on SPLASH-E (Cascais, Portugal) (SPLASH-E 2023). Associati...

    2023

  49. [79]

    Will I be replaced?

    Mohammad Amin Kuhail, Sujith Samuel Mathew, Ashraf Khalil, Jose Berengueres, and Syed Jawad Hussain Shah. 2024. “Will I be replaced?” Assess- ing ChatGPT’s effect on software development and programmer perceptions of AI tools. Science of Computer Programming 235 (2024), 103111

    2024

  50. [80]

    Kumar, M

    A. Kumar, M. Lakshmi Devi, and J. S. Saltz. 2023. Bridging the Gap in AI- Driven Workflows: The Case for Domain-Specific Generative Bots. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) . IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2421–2430. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2023

  51. [83]

    Celine Latulipe, N Bruce Long, and Carlos E Seminario. 2015. Structuring Flipped Classes With Lightweight Teams and Gamification. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education . 392–397

    2015

  52. [85]

    Jian Liao, Linrong Zhong, Longting Zhe, Handan Xu, Ming Liu, and Tao Xie

  53. [86]

    Mark Liffiton, Brad E Sheese, Jaromir Savelka, and Paul Denny. 2024. Code- Help: Using Large Language Models with Guardrails for Scalable Support in Programming Classes. In Proceedings of the 23rd Koli Calling International Con- ference on Computing Education Research (Koli, F...

    2024

  54. [87]

    Hongxin Li, Jingran Su, Yuntao Chen, Qing Li, and Zhaoxiang Zhang. 2024. SheetCopilot: bringing software productivity to the next level through large language models. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (New Orleans, LA,...

    2024

  55. [88]

    Liang, Chenyang Yang, and Brad A

    Jenny T. Liang, Chenyang Yang, and Brad A. Myers. 2024. A Large-Scale Survey on the Usability of AI Programming Assistants: Successes and Challenges. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering . Article 52. https://doi.org/10.1145/359...

    2024

  56. [89]

    Dominic Lohr, Hieke Keuning, and Natalie Kiesler. 2024. You’re (Not) My Type – Can LLMs Generate Feedback of Specific Types for Introductory Programming Tasks? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2412.03516 Preprint available

    2024 doi arXiv

  57. [90]

    IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 17 (2024), 1668–1682

    Scaffolding Computational Thinking With ChatGPT. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 17 (2024), 1668–1682. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2024. 3392896

    2024 doi

  58. [91]

    Boxaun Ma, Li Chen, and Shin’ichi Konomi. 2024. Enhancing Programming Education with ChatGPT: A Case Study on Student Perceptions and Interactions in a Python Course. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15472 (2024). https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2403.15472

    2024 doi arXiv

  59. [92]

    Rongxin Liu, Carter Zenke, Charlie Liu, Andrew Holmes, Patrick Thornton, and David J. Malan. 2024. Teaching CS50 with AI: Leveraging Generative Beyond the Hype ITiCSE-WGR 2024, July 8–10, 2024, Milan, Italy Artificial Intelligence in Computer Science Education. In Proceedings ...

    2024

  60. [93]

    Evanfiya Logacheva, Arto Hellas, James Prather, Sami Sarsa, and Juho Leinonen

  61. [94]

    In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1 (Melbourne, VIC, Australia) (ICER ’24)

    Evaluating Contextually Personalized Programming Exercises Created with Generative AI. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1 (Melbourne, VIC, Australia) (ICER ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, ...

    2024

  62. [95]

    Manley, Timothy Urness, Andrei Migunov, and Md

    Eric D. Manley, Timothy Urness, Andrei Migunov, and Md. Alimoor Reza. 2024. Examining Student Use of AI in CS1 and CS2. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges (JCSC) 39, 6 (May 2024), 41–51

    2024

  63. [96]

    Wenhan Lyu, Yimeng Wang, Tingting Rachel Chung, Yifan Sun, and Yixuan Zhang. 2024. Evaluating the Effectiveness of LLMs in Introductory Computer Science Education: A Semester-Long Field Study.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13414 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  64. [97]

    Dylan Edward Moore, Sophia R. R. Moore, Bansharee Ireen, Winston P. Iskandar, Grigory Artazyan, and Elizabeth L. Murnane. 2024. Teaching artificial intel- ligence in extracurricular contexts through narrative-based learnersourcing. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human...

    2024

  65. [98]

    Stephen MacNeil, Celine Latulipe, Bruce Long, and Aman Yadav. 2016. Exploring Lightweight Teams in a Distributed Learning Environment. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (Memphis, Tennessee, USA)(SIGCSE ’16). Association for Compu...

    2016

  66. [99]

    Becker, Michel Wermelinger, and Karen Reid

    Stephen MacNeil, Juho Leinonen, Paul Denny, Natalie Kiesler, Arto Hellas, James Prather, Brett A. Becker, Michel Wermelinger, and Karen Reid. 2024. Discussing the Changing Landscape of Generative AI in Computing Education. In Proceed- ings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium o...

    2024

  67. [100]

    Daye Nam, Andrew Macvean, Vincent Hellendoorn, Bogdan Vasilescu, and Brad Myers. 2024. Using an LLM to Help With Code Understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering (Lisbon, Portugal) (ICSE ’24). Association for Computing Ma...

    2024

  68. [101]

    Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Tran, Arto Hellas, Joanne Kim, Sami Sarsa, Paul Denny, Seth Bernstein, and Juho Leinonen. 2023. Experiences from Using Code Explanations Generated by Large Language Models in a Web Soft- ware Development E-Book. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical ...

    2023

  69. [103]

    Julia M Markel, Steven G Opferman, James A Landay, and Chris Piech. 2023. GPTeach: Interactive TA Training with GPT-based Students. InProceedings of the tenth ACM conference on learning@ scale . 226–236

    2023

  70. [104]

    Lars Oestreicher. 2023. New Perspectives on Education and Examination in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. In 2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1–9

    2023

  71. [105]

    Hussein Mozannar, Gagan Bansal, Adam Fourney, and Eric Horvitz. 2024. Read- ing Between the Lines: Modeling User Behavior and Costs in AI-Assisted Pro- gramming. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Article 142. https://doi.org/10.1145/36...

    2024

  72. [106]

    Emiliana Murgia, Maria Soledad Pera, Monica Landoni, and Theo Huibers

  73. [107]

    In Adjunct Proceedings of the 31st ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization

    Children on ChatGPT Readability in an Educational Context: Myth or Opportunity?. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 31st ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization . 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3563359.3596996

  74. [108]

    Ivica Pesovski, Ricardo Santos, Roberto Henriques, and Vladimir Trajkovik

  75. [109]

    González, Marcelo Mendoza, Juan Pablo Sandoval Alco- cer, Leonardo Centellas, and Carlos Paredes

    Andrés Neyem, Luis A. González, Marcelo Mendoza, Juan Pablo Sandoval Alco- cer, Leonardo Centellas, and Carlos Paredes. 2024. Toward an AI Knowledge Assistant for Context-Aware Learning Experiences in Software Capstone Project Development. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technol...

    2024

  76. [110]

    Siddhartha Prasad, Ben Greenman, Tim Nelson, and Shriram Krishnamurthi

  77. [111]

    Sydney Nguyen, Hannah McLean Babe, Yangtian Zi, Arjun Guha, Carolyn Jane Anderson, and Molly Q Feldman. 2024. How Beginning Programmers and Code LLMs (Mis)read Each Other. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ...

    2024

  78. [112]

    Reeves, Jaromir Savelka, David H

    James Prather, Juho Leinonen, Natalie Kiesler, Jamie Gorson Benario, Sam Lau, Stephen MacNeil, Narges Norouzi, Simone Opel, Virginia Pettit, Leo Porter, Brent N. Reeves, Jaromir Savelka, David H. Smith, Sven Strickroth, and Daniel Zingaro. 2024. How Instructors Incorporate Gen...

    2024 doi

  79. [113]

    Stack Overflow. 2024. Stack Overflow Developer Survey 2024. https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2024/ai

    2024

  80. [114]

    Maciej Pankiewicz and Ryan S Baker. 2024. Navigating Compiler Errors with AI Assistance–A Study of GPT Hints in an Introductory Programming Course. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12737 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  81. [115]

    Neil Perry, Megha Srivastava, Deepak Kumar, and Dan Boneh. 2023. Do Users Write More Insecure Code with AI Assistants?. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (Copenhagen, Denmark) (CCS ’23). Association for Computing Machinery...

    2023

  82. [116]

    Md Mostafizer Rahman and Yutaka Watanobe. 2023. ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies.Applied Sciences 13, 9 (2023), 5783

    2023

  83. [117]

    Sustainability 16, 7 (2024), 3034

    Generative AI for Customizable Learning Experiences. Sustainability 16, 7 (2024), 3034

    2024

  84. [118]

    Carrie Anne Philbin. 2023. Impact of Generative AI on K-12 Students’ Percep- tions of Computing: A Research Proposal. In Proceedings of the 18th WiPSCE Conference on Primary and Secondary Computing Education Research . Article 28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3605468.3609775

    2023

  85. [119]

    Becker, Arto Hellas, Bailey Kimmel, Garrett Powell, and Juho Leinonen

    Brent Reeves, Sami Sarsa, James Prather, Paul Denny, Brett A. Becker, Arto Hellas, Bailey Kimmel, Garrett Powell, and Juho Leinonen. 2023. Evaluating the Performance of Code Generation Models for Solving Parsons Problems With Small Prompt Variations. In Proceedings of the 2023...

    2023

  86. [120]

    In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Global Computing Education Vol 1 (Hyderabad, India) (CompEd 2023)

    Generating Programs Trivially: Student Use of Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Global Computing Education Vol 1 (Hyderabad, India) (CompEd 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1145/3576882.3617921

    2023

  87. [121]

    Becker, Ibrahim Albluwi, Michelle Craig, Hieke Keuning, Natalie Kiesler, Tobias Kohn, Andrew Luxton- Reilly, Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Petersen, Raymond Pettit, Brent N

    James Prather, Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen, Brett A. Becker, Ibrahim Albluwi, Michelle Craig, Hieke Keuning, Natalie Kiesler, Tobias Kohn, Andrew Luxton- Reilly, Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Petersen, Raymond Pettit, Brent N. Reeves, and Jaromir Savelka. 2023. The Robots Are Here: Na...

    2023

  88. [122]

    Gustavo Sandoval, Hammond Pearce, Teo Nys, Ramesh Karri, Siddharth Garg, and Brendan Dolan-Gavitt. 2023. Lost at C: A User Study on the Security Implications of Large Language Model Code Assistants. In32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23) . 2205–2222

    2023

  89. [123]

    James Prather, Brent Reeves, Paul Denny, Brett Becker, Juho Leinonen, Stephen MacNeil, Solofoarisina Arisoa Randrianasolo, Bailey Kimmel, Jared Wright, and Ben Briggs. 2024. The Widening Gap: The Benefits and Harms of Generative AI for Novice Programmers. In Proceedings of the...

    2024

  90. [124]

    It’s Weird That it Knows What I Want

    James Prather, Brent N. Reeves, Paul Denny, Brett A. Becker, Juho Leinonen, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Garrett Powell, James Finnie-Ansley, and Eddie Antonio Santos. 2023. "It’s Weird That it Knows What I Want": Usability and Interactions with Copilot for Novice Programmers. https:...

    2023 doi

  91. [125]

    Basit Qureshi. 2023. ChatGPT in Computer Science Curriculum Assessment: An analysis of Its Successes and Shortcomings. In Proceedings of the 2023 9th International Conference on E-Society, e-Learning and e-Technologies(Portsmouth, United Kingdom) (ICSLT ’23). Association for C...

    2023

  92. [126]

    Jaromir Savelka, Arav Agarwal, Christopher Bogart, Yifan Song, and Majd Sakr

  93. [127]

    Kumar, Bonnie MacKellar, Renée McCauley, Syed Waqar Nabi, and Michael Oudshoorn

    Rajendra Raj, Mihaela Sabin, John Impagliazzo, David Bowers, Mats Daniels, Felienne Hermans, Natalie Kiesler, Amruth N. Kumar, Bonnie MacKellar, Renée McCauley, Syed Waqar Nabi, and Michael Oudshoorn. 2021. Professional Com- petencies in Computing Education: Pedagogies and Ass...

    2021

  94. [128]

    Parsa Rajabi, Parnian Taghipour, Diana Cukierman, and Tenzin Doleck. 2023. Exploring ChatGPT’s Impact on Post-secondary Education: A Qualitative Study. In Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education (WCCCE’23), May 04–05, 2023. Simon Fraser University

    2023

  95. [129]

    Andreas Scholl, Daniel Schiffner, and Natalie Kiesler. 2024. Analyzing Chat Protocols of Novice Programmers Solving Introductory Programming Tasks with ChatGPT. In Proceedings of DELFI 2024 , Sandra Schulz and Natalie Kiesler (Eds.). 63–79. https://doi.org/10.18420/delfi2024_05

    2024 doi

  96. [130]

    Lianne Roest, Hieke Keuning, and Johan Jeuring. 2024. Next-Step Hint Genera- tion for Introductory Programming Using Large Language Models. In Proceed- ings of the 26th Australasian Computing Education Conference . 144–153

    2024

  97. [131]

    Pati Ruiz, Alessandra Rangel, and Merijke Coenraad. 2024. Using Generative AI to Support PK-12 Teaching and Learning: Developing Sample Lessons and More. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2. 1800–1801. https://doi.org/10.1145/3...

    2024

  98. [132]

    Judy Sheard, Paul Denny, Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, Lauri Malmi, and Simon

  99. [133]

    Dos Santos and D

    O. Dos Santos and D. Cury. 2023. Challenging the Confirmation Bias: Using ChatGPT as a Virtual Peer for Peer Instruction in Computer Programming Education. In 2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) . IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 1–7. https://doi.org...

    2023

  100. [134]

    Sami Sarsa, Paul Denny, Arto Hellas, and Juho Leinonen. 2022. Automatic Generation of Programming Exercises and Code Explanations Using Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1 (Lugano and Virtual...

    2022

  101. [135]

    Jaromir Savelka, Arav Agarwal, Marshall An, Chris Bogart, and Majd Sakr. 2023. Thrilled by Your Progress! Large Language Models (GPT-4) No Longer Struggle to Pass Assessments in Higher Education Programming Courses. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Co...

    2023

  102. [136]

    Anjali Singh, Christopher Brooks, Xu Wang, Warren Li, Juho Kim, and Deepti Wilson. 2024. Bridging Learnersourcing and AI: Exploring the Dynamics of Student-AI Collaborative Feedback Generation. In Proceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (Kyoto, Japa...

    2024

  103. [137]

    In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V

    Can Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT) Pass Assessments in Higher Education Programming Courses?. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 . 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588792

    2023

  104. [138]

    Jaromir Savelka, Paul Denny, Mark Liffiton, and Brad Sheese. 2023. Efficient Classification of Student Help Requests in Programming Courses Using Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20105 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  105. [139]

    Andreas Scholl and Natalie Kiesler. 2024. How Novice Programmers Use and Experience ChatGPT when Solving Programming Exercises in an Introductory Course. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.20792 arXiv:2407.20792 [cs.AI] accepted at 2024 IEEE ASEE Frontiers in Education Conference

    2024 doi arXiv

  106. [140]

    Joshi, Kirsten A

    Ben Arie Tanay, Lexy Arinze, Siddhant S. Joshi, Kirsten A. Davis, and James C. Davis. 2024. An Exploratory Study on Upper-Level Computing Students’ Use of Large Language Models as Tools in a Semester-Long Project. arXiv:2403.18679 https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.18679

    2024 arXiv

  107. [141]

    Anshul Shah, Jerry Yu, Thanh Tong, and Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj. 2024. Work- ing with Large Code Bases: A Cognitive Apprenticeship Approach to Teaching Software Engineering. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. 1209–1215. htt...

    2024 doi

  108. [142]

    Shang Shanshan and Geng Sen. 2024. Empowering learners with AI-generated content for programming learning and computational thinking: The lens of extended effective use theory. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2024). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12996

    2024 doi

  109. [143]

    Andrew Taylor, Alexandra Vassar, Jake Renzella, and Hammond Pearce. 2024. dcc –help: Transforming the Role of the Compiler by Generating Context-Aware Error Explanations with Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education...

    2024

  110. [145]

    Brad Sheese, Mark Liffiton, Jaromir Savelka, and Paul Denny. 2024. Patterns of Student Help-Seeking When Using a Large Language Model-Powered Program- ming Assistant. In Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Computing Education Conference (Sydney, NSW, Australia)(ACE ’24). Asso...

    2024

  111. [146]

    Abdulhadi Shoufan. 2023. Can Students without Prior Knowledge Use ChatGPT to Answer Test Questions? An Empirical Study. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 23, 4, Article 45 (dec 2023), 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3628162

    2023 doi

  112. [147]

    Carlos Alexandre Gouvea da Silva, Felipe Negrelle Ramos, Rafael Veiga de Moraes, and Edson Leonardo dos Santos. 2024. ChatGPT: Challenges and benefits in software programming for higher education. Sustainability 16, 3 (2024), 1245

    2024

  113. [148]

    Smith IV, Mounika Padala, Christine Alvarado, Jamie Gorson Benario, and Leo Porter

    Annapurna Vadaparty, Daniel Zingaro, David H. Smith IV, Mounika Padala, Christine Alvarado, Jamie Gorson Benario, and Leo Porter. 2024. CS1-LLM: Integrating LLMs into CS1 Instruction. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Educat...

    2024

  114. [149]

    Sandro Speth, Niklas Meißner, and Steffen Becker. 2023. Investigating the Use of AI-Generated Exercises for Beginner and Intermediate Programming Courses: A ChatGPT Case Study. In 2023 IEEE 35th International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T) ....

    2023

  115. [150]

    Pragnya Sridhar, Aidan Doyle, Arav Agarwal, Christopher Bogart, Jaromir Savelka, and Majd Sakr. 2023. Harnessing LLMs in Curricular Design: Using GPT- 4 to Support Authoring of Learning Objectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17459 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  116. [151]

    Dan Sun, Azzeddine Boudouaia, Chengcong Zhu, and Yan Li. 2024. Would ChatGPT-facilitated programming mode impact college students’ programming behaviors, performances, and perceptions? An empirical study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 21, ...

    2024

  117. [152]

    Mo Wang, Minjuan Wang, Xin Xu, Lanqing Yang, Dunbo Cai, and Minghao Yin

  118. [153]

    Tanimoto

    Steven L. Tanimoto. 2023. Five Futures with AI Coding Agents. In Companion Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming. 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3594671.3594685

    2023

  119. [154]

    Lev Tankelevitch, Viktor Kewenig, Auste Simkute, Ava Elizabeth Scott, Advait Sarkar, Abigail Sellen, and Sean Rintel. 2024. The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . Article 680. h...

    2024 doi

  120. [155]

    Weisz, Michael Muller, Steven I

    Justin D. Weisz, Michael Muller, Steven I. Ross, Fernando Martinez, Stephanie Houde, Mayank Agarwal, Kartik Talamadupula, and John T. Richards. 2022. Better Together? An Evaluation of AI-Supported Code Translation. In Proceed- ings of the 27th International Conference on Intel...

    2022

  121. [156]

    Gareth Terry, Nikki Hayfield, Victoria Clarke, Virginia Braun, et al. 2017. The- matic analysis. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology 2, 17-37 (2017), 25

    2017

  122. [157]

    Andreas Tolk, Philip Barry, Margaret L Loper, Ghaith Rabadi, William T Scherer, and Levent Yilmaz. 2023. Chances and Challenges of ChatGPT and Similar Models for Education in M&S. In 2023 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC) . IEEE, 3332–3346

    2023

  123. [158]

    Andrew Tran, Kenneth Angelikas, Egi Rama, Chiku Okechukwu, David H Smith, and Stephen MacNeil. 2023. Generating multiple choice questions for comput- ing courses using large language models. In 2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1–8

    2023

  124. [159]

    Minh Tran. 2023. Prompt Engineering for Large Language Models to Support K-8 Computer Science Teachers in Creating Culturally Responsive Projects. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 2. 110–112. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2023

  125. [160]

    Ramazan Yilmaz and Fatma Gizem Karaoglan Yilmaz. 2023. The effect of gen- erative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students’ computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation. Computers and Edu- cation: Artificial Intelligence 4 (2023), 100147

    2023

  126. [161]

    Marcel Valový and Alena Buchalcevova. 2023. The Psychological Effects of AI- Assisted Programming on Students and Professionals. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME) . 385–390. https: //doi.org/10.1109/ICSME58846.2023.00050

    2023

  127. [162]

    Griswold

    Sander Valstar, Caroline Sih, Sophia Krause-Levy, Leo Porter, and William G. Griswold. 2020. A Quantitative Study of Faculty Views on the Goals of an Undergraduate CS Program and Preparing Students for Industry. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Comput...

    2020

  128. [163]

    Yoshija Walter. 2024. Embracing the future of Artificial Intelligence in the classroom: the relevance of AI literacy, prompt engineering, and critical thinking in modern education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 21, 1 (2024), 15

    2024

  129. [165]

    IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 17 (2024), 629–641

    Unleashing ChatGPT’s Power: A Case Study on Optimizing Information Retrieval in Flipped Classrooms via Prompt Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 17 (2024), 629–641. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2023. 3324714

    2024 doi

  130. [167]

    Tianjia Wang, Daniel Vargas-Diaz, Chris Brown, and Yan Chen. 2023. To- wards Adapting Computer Science Courses to AI Assistants’ Capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03289 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  131. [169]

    Juliette Woodrow, Ali Malik, and Chris Piech. 2024. AI Teaches the Art of Elegant Coding: Timely, Fair, and Helpful Style Feedback in a Global Course. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (Portland, OR, USA) (SIGCSE 2024). Assoc...

    2024

  132. [170]

    Hao Wu, Daidong Fa, Xiaoling Wu, Weijun Tan, Xiwen Chang, Ying Gao, and Jinta Weng. 2023. Research on the Construction of Intelligent Programming Platform Based on AI-generated Content. InProceedings of the 15th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers . 9–15

    2023

  133. [171]

    Ruiwei Xiao, Xinying Hou, and John Stamper. 2024. Exploring How Multiple Levels of GPT-Generated Programming Hints Support or Disappoint Novices. In Extended Abstracts of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’24) . Association for Computing Mac...

    2024

  134. [172]

    Bai, Robert Tairas, and Yu Huang

    Yuankai Xue, Hanlin Chen, Gina R. Bai, Robert Tairas, and Yu Huang. 2024. Does ChatGPT Help With Introductory Programming? An Experiment of Students Using ChatGPT in CS1. In Proceedings of the 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Educatio...

    2024

  135. [174]

    Cynthia Zastudil, Magdalena Rogalska, Christine Kapp, Jennifer Vaughn, and Stephen MacNeil. 2023. Generative AI in Computing Education: Perspectives of Students and Instructors. In 2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) . IEEE, 1–9

    2023

  136. [175]

    Zhengdong Zhang, Zihan Dong, Yang Shi, Thomas Price, Noboru Matsuda, and Dongkuan Xu. 2024. Students’ perceptions and preferences of generative artificial intelligence feedback for programming. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 38. 23250–2...

    2024 doi arXiv

  137. [176]

    Supervised

    Albert Ziegler, Eirini Kalliamvakou, X Alice Li, Andrew Rice, Devon Rifkin, Shawn Simister, Ganesh Sittampalam, and Edward Aftandilian. 2024. Measuring GitHub Copilot’s impact on productivity. Commun. ACM 67, 3 (March 2024), 54–63. ITiCSE-WGR 2024, July 8–10, 2024, Milan, Ital...

    2024

  138. [1916]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3626253.3635369

  139. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM India Compute Conference (Hyderabad, India) (COMPUTE ’23)

    Evaluating the Quality of LLM-Generated Explanations for Logical Errors in CS1 Student Programs. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM India Compute Conference (Hyderabad, India) (COMPUTE ’23) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 49–54. https://doi.org/10....

  140. [2024]

    Which LLM should I use?

    "Which LLM should I use?": Evaluating LLMs for tasks performed by Undergraduate Computer Science Students. arXiv:2402.01687 [cs.CY] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2402.01687

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.